Thursday, December 3, 2009

Trade and climate change are issues that should be handled together in order to create a better economy in a sustainable environment. Whatever trade policy is pursued by countries engaged in trade agreements will have a direct impact on the state of the world’s environment. Trade policy may mitigate or aggravate climate change which in the long run will either improve or defeat trade activities.

What is climate change?

Climate change as defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to the natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

What is the effect of climate change?

A major evidence of climate change today is global warming. Global warming is the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG)—carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides in the atmosphere; these trap the sun’s heat energy thus resulting in increases in the average global temperature. It is caused by GHG-emitting human activities such as excessive burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and growing waste dumps.

Other effects of climate change are increase in sea levels, increase in temperature and acidity of oceans, melting of ice caps, spread of climate-related diseases such as malaria, higher incidence of hurricane and forest fires, and destruction of crops.

In the Philippines, the most affected sectors of climate change are agriculture, food security, and health. (Atty. Rommel J. Casis, Professorial Lecturer at the U.P. College of Law, and Program Director of the International Environmental Law Research Program)

Is climate change relevant to international trade? How can climate change impacts affect trade and investment flows?

Yes. The Stern Report put this into perspective by calculating that the costs of action on climate change were in fact less than the costs of inaction, and noting that failing to address the problem creates the equivalent of a 20% loss of GDP globally, now and forever, with losses falling disproportionately on poor countries. In such a context, delivering on the fundamental goals of the multilateral trading system becomes impossible.

Climate change will have significant impacts on trade flows, given its expected impacts on agriculture, forestry and a number of other highly traded sectors. In general, the impacts of this type will involve changes in comparative advantage based on environmental factors.

Another sort of impact involves climate change directly affecting trade‐related infrastructure, or trading routes. The Stern Report identified several of these sorts of impacts:

• Rising sea levels may endanger coastal infrastructure that supports trade, such as ports, as well as trade‐related facilities located close to ports such as steel mills, petrochemical plants and other energy facilities.

• Rising Arctic temperatures will make Arctic sea lanes safer and more reliable as transport routes. However, melting permafrost may damage high latitude oil and gas installations, pipelines, as well as railways.

• As well, extreme weather events can be expected to disrupt markets and infrastructure. Particularly vulnerable is infrastructure located near coastlines, such as oil refineries, nuclear power plants, and port facilities. One of the predicted effects—increased flooding—will affect infrastructure as well as transport routes.

How do trade liberalization, investment agreements or other sorts of trade policy changes alter the economy in ways that impact on climate change?

1. Lowering tariffs just on particularly GHG‐intensive goods (whether intensive in production or in their end use) is likely to aggravate climate change.

2. Agreement to restrict domestic subsidies will have a positive composition impact if the subsidies in question encourage the production or use of particularly GHG‐intensive goods. On the flip side, agreement to allow domestic subsidies to support climate‐friendly goods and technologies might have positive climate change impacts, though the wider long‐term impacts of any increased subsidies would demand careful consideration.

3. The very fact of increased trade, in and of itself, will lead directly to more global GHG emissions from increased transport of goods. The GHG‐intensity of transport varies enormously from marine transport to trucks to air freight, but in the end all modes of transport have some emissions.

4. It is also conceivable that changes in intellectual property rights law could have climate change impacts. Specifically, it is possible that weakening patent protection on climate friendly technologies could have immediate climate benefits, if it led to more widespread dissemination of those technologies. The longer term impacts, however, might be negative if weakened protection discouraged investment and innovation in sectors of promise from a climate change perspective.

Are there existing international agreements that address climate change?

Yes. The following international agreements address climate change:

1. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)- This was established on March 21, 1994 to set an overall framework that will address issues on climate change. The convention intends to initiate strategies that will encourage GHG emission reduction and to contribute to the preparation for adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change.

2. Kyoto Protocol- The Kyoto protocol, which was put in force on February 16, 2005, is an international agreement that sets a target reduction of GHG (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs) emissions for 37 industrialized countries and European communities starting from 2008 to 2012. Specifically, it requires an average reduction of five percent from the GHG emission recorded in 1990. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."

Are these agreements effective in addressing climate change?

The UNFCC is just a framework agreement. As for the Kyoto Protocol, according to Atty. Antonio G.M. La Viña (Dean of the Ateneo School of Government, and Professorial Lecturer at the U.P. College of Law) the same is not a complete success because some of the member countries have failed to meet the agreed targets.

Are there efforts to resolve further the problem of climate change?

Yes. A number of negotiations addressing climate change are on-going. The most recent plan presented was the Bali Road Map, which consists of decisions and future measures against climate change. The Bali Road Map includes the creation of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, the long-term goal of emission reduction, mitigation actions, and adaptation funding and cooperations.

What is the Philippines response to climate change?

Philippines has participated in the discussions and negotiations leading to the ratification of various international agreements:

1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ratified on August 2, 1994 and2. Kyoto Protocol, which was ratified on November 20, 2003.

At the national level, the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan of 2004-2010 (MTDP) underscored the need to manage the environment more effectively in order for the country to address the problem of poverty particularly in the rural areas.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries such as the Philippines are called to pass and implement national measures that shall advance the international community’s agenda pertaining to environmental preservation through the reduction of greenhouse emissions (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Pursuant to the provisions in this treaty, the Philippines passed national legislations to uphold the agreements embedded in the Kyoto Protocol:

1. The Clean Air Act of 1999, otherwise known as Republic Act 8749, was enacted in order to arrive at an effective air quality management program that will mitigate the worsening problem of air pollution in the country.2. Reinforcing the country’s drive towards a healthier environment was the enactment of the Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003) that aimed at providing a comprehensive solution to the country’s garbage problem.

At the institutional level, prior to the signing and ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the creation of the Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change (IACC) in May 8, 1991 under the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was a concrete manifestation of the Philippines’ attempt to promptly address the issue of climate change. IACC was created by virtue of Presidential Order No. 220 with the secretary of the DENR sitting as chair and the secretary of the DOST as co-chair.

The ultimate aim of the committee is to harness and synergize the various activities being undertaken by the national government and civil society in response to the crisis posed by growing problem on climate change. The IACC likewise formulates policy actions and recommendations while at the same time assumes a very significant role in terms of shaping the Philippines’ national positions in the various international negotiations that aim to mitigate the effects of global climate change and prevent the worse possible consequences of this.

The IACC therefore ensures the Philippines’ faithful compliance to the mandates and principles contained in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and sees to it that adequate public awareness campaign and initiatives are held to bring the issue to all the sectors of the country.

What campaign on international trade can be done to address climate change?

1. Ensure that the country we are dealing with complies with the multilateral environmental agreements to which the country is a party and has in force adequate environmental laws and regulations, has devoted sufficient resources to implementing those laws and regulations, and has an adequate record of enforcement of those laws and regulations;

2. Trade in goods and services- call for the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.

3. Push for provisions providing for non-actionable subsidies for the environment.

4. Push for provisions that shall provide for the reduction/removal of fossil fuel subsidies.

5. Trade agreements shall include environmental and public safety standard:

The environmental provisions shall—

(A) be included in the core text of the trade agreement;

(B) prohibit each country that is a party to the trade agreement from weakening, eliminating, or failing to enforce domestic environmental or other public health or safety standards to promote trade or attract investment;

(C) require each country that is a party to the trade agreement to implement and enforce fully and effectively, including through domestic law, the country’s obligations under multilateral environmental agreements and provide for the enforcement of such obligations under the trade agreement;

(D) prohibit the trade of goods derived from illegally harvested or extracted natural resources, at any stage of production, including timber and timber products, fish, wildlife, and associated products, mineral resources, and other environmentally sensitive goods; and

(E) allow each country that is a party to the trade agreement to adopt and implement environmental, health, and safety standards, recognizing the legitimate right of governments to protect the environment and public health and safety.

Sources:

1. Aaron Cosby, Trade and Climate Change Linkages, 20072. Aaron Cosby, Harnessing Globalization: Scaling Up Trade and Investment Policy’s Contribution to Climate Change Efforts.3. Agnes Paculdar and Melissa Parreño, The Philippines’ Response to Climate Change, http://www.researchsea.com/html/article.php/aid/3638/cid/64. http://www.iisd.org/trade/crosscutting/bali_copenhagen.asp5. 111th U.S Congress, 1st Session, H.R, 3012: To require a review of existing trade agreements and renegotiation of existing trade agreements based on the review, to set terms for future trade agreements, to express the sense of the Congress that the role of Congress in trade policymaking should be strengthened, and for other purposes.

The UP Debate Society is proud to invite everyone to the upcoming Philippine Intercollegiate Debating Championship 2010, the largest and most prestigious national debate tournament in the Asians Parliamentary format. Be one with us as we once again gather the most brilliant and most promising young Filipino debaters and leaders to challenge boundaries and engage in critical discourse about the most pressing issues that confront our society and the world. For over 9 years now, the UP Debate Society has shared the passion for debate excellence and creativity through PIDC. It has become a well-anticipated event for keeping its trademark of a tournament experience beyond expectations which complements the competitive intellectual forum for young minds and their brave ideas.

Mark your calendars! PIDC 2010 will be held on April 7-12, 2010 at the University of the Philippines - Diliman. We will be releasing official communication and tournament information soon. For initial queries, you may contact us through 0916 593 5647 (Angelo) or online through our email (pidc2010@gmail. com), Facebook (PIDC 2010) and Twitter accounts.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) is an improvement over the current ASEAN Free Trade Area-Common Effective Preferential Tariff (AFTA CEPT) Scheme.- The AFTA CEPT Scheme was focused on tariffs, the main component of which was the schedule for tariff reduction/elimination for trade in goods in ASEAN.- The ATIGA is akin to a Trade-in-Goods (TIG) chapter of an FTA, which comprises both tariff and non-tariff elements (e.g. trade disciplines on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, Customs Procedures, and Trade Facilitation, among others).

Why the ATIGA?

The AFTA CEPT Scheme was implemented in 1993. After 15 years, ASEAN has matured in the area of trade-in-goods. Given this, coupled with the changes in business processes and that ASEAN has negotiated and concluded FTAs with several Dialogue Partners, it is timely for the AFTA CEPT scheme to be upgraded, so that ASEAN remains current.

What is the objective of the ATIGA?

The objective of this Agreement is to achieve free flow of goods in ASEAN as one of the principal means to establish a single market and production base for the deeper economic integration of the region towards the realisation of the AEC by 2015.[1]

2. Consolidated and streamlined rights and obligations- To have an agreement that is more user-friendly for traders, the ATIGA consolidates all ASEAN’s existing initiatives, obligations and commitments made with regard to intra-ASEAN trade-in-goods into one comprehensive document.

3. Most-favoured nation treatment- if a Member State enters into any agreement with a non-Member State where commitments are more favourable than that accorded under this Agreement, the other Member States have the right to request for negotiations with that Member State to request for the incorporation herein of treatment no less favourable than that provided under the aforesaid agreement. The decision to extend such tariff preference will be on a unilateral basis. The extension of such tariff preference shall be accorded to all Member States.[2]

4. Full tariff reduction schedules- Member States shall eliminate import duties on all products traded between the Member States by 2010 for ASEAN-6[3] and by 2015, with flexibility to 2018, for CLMV[4].[5]

5. Streamlined and unified provisions on modification of concessions and trade remedies- In exceptional circumstances where a Member State faces unforeseen difficulties in implementing its tariff commitments, that Member State may temporarily modify or suspend a concession contained in its Schedules.[6]

6. Trade facilitation and related chapters- The ATIGA has taken into account, and dedicated chapters on Trade Facilitation and for each of the relevant sectors, i.e. (i) customs, (ii) standards, technical regulation and conformity assessment procedures; and (iii) SPS Measures. The ATIGA details disciplines in these areas to ensure clear and consistent application of trade procedures; and establishes formalised contact points of customs authorities to facilitate the resolution of customs-related issues that arise during import/export of goods.

7. Trade repository- An ASEAN Trade Repository containing trade and customs laws and procedures of all Member States shall be established and made accessible to the public through the internet. The ASEAN Trade Repository shall contain trade related information such as (i) tariff nomenclature; (ii) MFN tariffs, preferential tariffs offered under this Agreement and other Agreements of ASEAN with its Dialogue Partners; (iii) Rules of Origin; (iv) non-tariff measures; (v) national trade and customs laws and rules; (vi) procedures and documentary requirements; (vii) administrative rulings; (viii) best practices in trade facilitation applied by each Member State; and (ix) list of authorized traders of Member States.[7]

8. Issuance of Legal Enactments- ATIGA provides for the issuance of a single legal enactment for the whole tariff reduction schedule- No later than 90 days for ASEAN 6 and 6 months after entry into force for CLMV.- Would have retroactive effect from 1 January of the year of entry into force- In case where single legal enactment cannot be issued, legal enactment would be issued 3 months before tariff reduction takes into effect

1. Lack of public consultations- It is required under the Tariff and Customs and under the current set-up of the Committee and Trade Related Matter that before negotiating a trade policy position, public hearings should be made so that the people could register their concerns over a trade agreement. In the negotiation of this agreement, no prior public consultations were made. Public consultations, characterized by lack of transparency, were conducted only after the negotiation has been concluded;

2. The agreement should be submitted to the Senate for ratification given the direction of the agreement towards a legal framework and rules-based system;

3. The agreement should not be in conflict with Philippine domestic laws and international commitments; and

4. Philippines should not accelerate tariff reductions given the fiscal problem that it is facing and given the global financial crisis affecting US and Europe. The timelines for tariff reduction implementation should consider the development needs of the country with a view of revisiting and postponing even the accelerated timetables for zero tariff levels beyond 2010. Under ASEAN-CEPT, tariffs on the remaining 40% shall be eliminated not later than 2010. Accelerating said tariff elimination, ATIGA requires that Import duties of at least 80% tariff lines are eliminated even as early as 2009.

1. The agreement provides no assurance in the facilitation of trade in goods.

Chapter 6, Standards, Technical Regulations and Conformity Assessment Procedures, provides that nothing in this Chapter shall limit the right of a Party to prepare, adopt and apply standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures only to the extent necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective. Such legitimate objectives are, inter alia, national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety; animal or plant life or health; or the environment.

What is the limitation to this provision? What common standards shall be observed?

In interpreting the provisions of the agreement, it appears that parties have the right to adopt their own standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedure. Parties therefore have blanket authority to refuse market access of goods coming from another party on the basis and pretense of independent policy to fulfill legitimate objectives.

2. Contrary to what FTAs should be, the provisions of the AANZFTA in trade in services provide no preference to facilitate the free movement of natural persons of the parties.

Paragraph 3, Article 4, Chapter 9, of the agreement gives parties the right to deny entry of natural persons if they fail to follow immigration prescribed procedures and all the eligibility requirements for entry to the granting party. Article 7, Chapter 9, gives the State the full and wide discretion to discriminate the entry of natural persons by not preventing the Parties from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, provided that such measures are not applied in such a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to another Party under said Chapter or to unduly impair or delay trade in goods or services or the conduct of investment activities under this Agreement.

As to what are considered nullification or impairment of the benefits under the Agreement, or unduly impairing or delaying trade in goods or services or the conduct of investment activities, are not clearly defined in said agreement. It only provides that the sole fact of requiring persons to meet eligibility requirements prior to entry to a Party shall not be regarded as nullifying or impairing benefits accruing to another Party, or of unduly impairing or delaying trade in goods or services or the conduct of investment activities under this Agreement.

3. The Agreement may directly violate investment provisions of the Constitution relating to acquisition and ownership of land, use of marine resources and the extraction and exploitation of natural resources.

Investment provisions of the agreement allow the acquisition and control by an investor of movable and immovable properties, and other property rights subject to reservations to be made by each government (Chapter 11). It also allows any concession to search for, cultivate, extract or exploit natural resources. And it provides for the application of national treatment in the acquisition, control and exploitation of said properties.

What are the limitations to this Chapter? What are the limitations reserved by the Philippine government? As of this moment, the government has not yet produced any reservation list.

In line with this, it is our position that the government shall reserve the following:

a. 1987 Constitution specifically but no limited to Article 12, the National Economy and Patrimony. The government shall reserve specific provisions of Article 12 but not limited to the following:

· Section 2- Natural resources shall not be alienated with the exception of agricultural land. The exploration development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State shall reserve the use and enjoyment of marine wealth exclusively to Filipino citizens.

· Section 3- Private corporation or association may not hold agricultural lands except by lease for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead or grant. And taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.

· Section 5- The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights and relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

· Section 10- The Congress shall reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.

b. Philippine domestic laws specifically but not limited to the following:

· RA 8371, Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act

· RA 7042 as amended by RA 8179, Foreign Investment Act

· Foreign Investment Negative List

· RA 7652, Investors’ Lease Act

4. As regards provisions on intellectual property rights, the agreement obliges a party to be bound to a number of international agreements on IPR even if they are not a signatory to said IPR international agreements.

Basic is the principle in law that contracts are binding only those who are privy to said contracts. Therefore, obligation arising from contracts cannot be enforce against parties who are not privy to said contracts.

Chapter 13 of the agreement, allows a party, who is a signatory to other international agreements on IPR, to seek other parties to support its implementation. Said IPR international agreements are as follows:

(a) the Patent Cooperation Treaty 1970; (Philippines is a signatory)(b) the Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification 1971; (Philippines is not a signatory)(c) the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure 1977; (Philippines is a signatory)(d) the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks 1989; (Philippines is not a signatory)(e) the Patent Law Treaty 2000; (Philippines is not a signatory)(f) the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1991; (Philippines is not a signatory)(g) the TRIPS Agreement; (Philippines is a signatory)(h) the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks 2006; (Philippines is not a signatory)(i) the WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996; and(j) the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996.

5. The agreement defines Intellectual Property Rights by including rights in plant varieties. This provision is inimical to the interests of farmers who have inherent rights as breeders of plants since time immemorial.

By including National Treatment provisions on intellectual property, laws such as RA 9168 or the Plant Variety Protection Act of 2002 will now be extended to parties under the AANZFTA. Thus, creating a monopoly on the development of seeds by transnational corporations.

6. The agreement sets limitation on the state’s power of taxation. The Chapter 15 provides that the agreement shall only grant rights or impose obligations with respect to taxation measures where:

(a) corresponding rights and obligations are also granted or imposed under the WTO Agreement; (b) they are granted or imposed under Article 8 (Transfers) of Chapter 11 (Investment); or(c) they are granted or imposed under Article 9 (Expropriation and Compensation) of Chapter 11 (Investment).

Parties are therefore not allowed to impose taxation measures outside these provisions.

· THBT gay rights movements should compel openly gay celebrities to actively support their causes· THBT feminist politics must transition from the halls of Congress to the bedroom· THBT Muslim universities should grant professional subsidies to feminist scholars living in radically conservative Muslim states.

Round 2: Europa

· THW ban the ownership of multiple properties in land strapped European countries· THBT it is justified for EU countries with bailout responsibilities to excuse themselves with financial commitments to the union· THBT the European Union should subsidize rehabilitation clinics for computer addicts

Round 3: Culpability

· THBT sober passengers of a drunk driver should be held criminally liable· THW punish bystanders of a crime· THW allow witnesses of gruesome murders to claim emotional damages against the criminal

Round 4: Environment

· TH celebrates the use of emotional blackmail as part of environmental strategies· THBT Earth Hour is a meaningless, faddish, exercise· THW make waste-disposal a mandatory requirement for free trade agreements

· THB in extending the land distribution program· TH overreacted Chip Tsao· THBT it is time to shut the doors on visiting forces

Quarterfinals: Rights

· THW lift the moratorium on blood donations for men who have sex with men· THBT parents who are minors should be allowed to retain custody of their offspring· TH supports the preferential disclosure of sexual harassment issues to religious leaders over state authorities within some religious communities

Semi-finals: Football

· TH regrets the recruitment of Third World football players by European football clubs· TH celebrates players walking-off the field in response to racist crowd hooliganism· THBT all players should donate majority of their advertising revenue to league development of the clubs they play for

Finals: Education

· TH celebrates the rise of political activism among students in public universities· THW accommodate student-teacher relationships among consenting adults in universities· THB in mandatory sex education in all religious schools

Monday, March 9, 2009

In behalf of the La Salle Debate Society, I would like to formally invite you to the La Salle Intervarsities 2009 which will be on March 28 to 29 (Saturday-Sunday) at the De La Salle University Manila Campus at Taft Avenue, Manila. This tournament will serve as an excellent preparation for the upcoming PIDC and AUDC this April and May respectively.

The tournament will have four (4) elimination rounds with three (3) break rounds. We have invited individuals who have stellar debate and adjudication records to join the adjudication core for this tournament. However, thier confirmation are still pending. But, we are pleased to announce that our Chief Adjudicator for this tournament will be Victor Mari Baguilat who has an excellent adjudication and debating record.

The tournament will maintain an N=1 rule policy with a tournament cap of 60 and an institution cap of 6. We dont have a strict rule on the composition of teams. This means that composite teams are most welcome to register and compete in the tournament. We have very limited slots for this tournament, so it is imperative that you rregister your teams and adjudictors before the pre-registration deadline.

To register, pls email the important details to this add: robinmichael_robingarcia@yahoo.com . The details should include the names of team members and adjudicators you will field. The Pre-registration will end on March 21 (Saturday). This means that at this date, we wont entertain team and adjudication registrants anymore.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

I would like to invite you to the 6th CSB IVs. This will be held on March 7-8, 2009, in the College of Saint Benilde.

As with last year's IVs, the format is still Asians, with composite teams allowed. That means, you could finally compete with your girlfriend/boyfrien d from the other institution, as well as get to see dinosaurs debate in a competitive environment.

No need to pre-register; you all could just go to CSB on March 7 and register your teams. Alternatively, for those of you who are really excited, you may contact me at this email address weebph@yahoo. com or message me to reserve your slot.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Hi all, the UPMDC is extending the Manila Intervarsity pre-registration until January 29. Kindly reserve your slots at http://upmdc. phildebate. com. For any concerns, kindly contact us at +639172593960 or manila.intervarsity @gmail.com. Thanks!

Monday, January 19, 2009

Hi, everyone! We have fixed the technical errors present in the first invite release for the Philippine Inter-Collegiate Debate Championship (PIDC 2009). This is the updated link, containing the official invitation with the comprehensive tournament profile and registration details: http://issuu. com/pidc2009/ docs/pidc2009_ tourney_profile_ .

The official invitation may also be downloaded at http://www.pidc- online.com. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need further assistance in terms of PIDC registration or if you have additional concerns.

Thank you very much. We are looking forward to sharing the PIDC tournament experience with you this coming April 15-20, 2009.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The tournament will be held in British Parliamentary style.Language – English.Team cap – 32 teams.Participation fee is €30 per debater, and €20 per adjudicator. Participants are provided with accommodation, food and transportation.

Registration is open! Fill in the aplication you will find in web page www.mru-debate. eu and send it to vilniusopen08@ gmail.com Registration will be closed at 2008 11 15

VIEWING THIS BLOG:

Thanks for visiting this blog. You have the freedom to do right and never wrong within this domain. The author do not claim to be a world debate champion because he is not. Neither is he the best in the Philippines. You have the option to leave. If you wish to stay, you are bound by the following terms:

1. Use this site as reference for learning debate and adjudication. The 'LABELS' section provides the specific topics that you need. Find articles and treatises about debate in the 'DEBATE RESOURCES AND REFERENCES' section of this site.

2. Use this site in researching for debate motions and in studying different issues affecting the globe. The author posts his opinion on different issues from time to time. Take time to visit the matterloading links provided by this site.

3. Respect the author's intellectual property right.

4. Copying of entries/photos from this blog is highly discouraged unless proper recognition is accorded to the author. For entries which are not original, please accord proper recognition to the cited author and source.

Philippine National Debate Community

Bobby Benedicto- Now based in Melbourne, Bobby has been DCA for three Asian Championships (2004 All-Asians, 2005 AUDC, 2007 All-Asians), for the 2005 Australs, and for an unknown number of local tournaments. As a debater, Bobby won two National Championships (2000, 2001), two Asian Championships (2002, 2003 - also Best Speaker, Best Speaker in the Final), made two Australs semis (2002, 2003), and broke twice at Worlds (2002, 2003).

Leloy Claudio- One of Australasia's most accomplished speakers, Leloy has won an amazing three Asian Debate Championships (2004 All-Asians, 2006 and 2007 AUDC). He reached the Grand Final of Australs in 2005 and the Semifinal in 2006 (also named 5th Best Speaker). As a first-year, he won the National Debate Championship and made the Worlds Quarterfinals. Lel has won various other competitions and has adjudicated in others, most recently as CA of the 2006 Nationals.

Sharmila Parmanand- One of Australasia's most accomplished debaters. Along with Leloy, she is the only other person to have won 3 Asian championships (2005, 2006, and 2007 AUDC). She reached the Australs Grand Final in 2005 and the Semifinal in 2006. She also won the National Debate Championship in 2005 and broke in Worlds in 2006.